St. Louis River Area of ConcernSt. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan viii Definitions Area...

Published December 2020

St. Louis River Area of Concern 2020 Remedial Action Plan

Reflects amendments to the 2019 RAP

October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020

Conversing about the Interstate Island avian habitat restoration project.

Cover Photo Credit: Melissa Sjolund, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2020

Major funding sources:

St. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan

i

About this Document:

The 2013 St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) Remedial Action Plan (RAP, hereinafter 2013 RAP Update) forms the basis of this 2020 RAP. The 2013 RAP Update was produced by LimnoTech (MPCA and WDNR, 2013), under contract to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and was funded by a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grant (Federal grant no. GL00E00556) and associated Minnesota and Wisconsin GLRI Capacity funding. Many organizations and individuals participated in a variety of ways as collaborators to the 2013 RAP Update, which is updated annually by the SLRAOC Coordinators and leaders. The collaborating agencies include the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (FdL), along with the AOC’s designated Citizen Action Committee (CAC), the St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA).

The annual update is provided for review and comment to the organizations and individuals participating in the RAP process. A draft redlined version of the RAP, showing changes made for the most recent federal fiscal year (FFY), is open for stakeholder and partner input for a two-week period. AOC Coordinators review and address the stakeholder and partner input before finalizing the RAP update and submitting it to the USEPA – Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). This 2020 RAP is the result of updates to the 2019 RAP and is current as of the federal fiscal year 2020 (October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020).

Individuals critical to the strategic direction and implementation of the RAP are listed below. Many others, too numerous to list here, have made important contributions to this year’s progress by providing technical guidance, administrative support, stakeholder input, and more. A list of current Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) Technical Team members can be found in Section 4.

St. Louis River AOC Coordinators Rick Gitar - Fond du Lac Barb Huberty - MPCA Melissa Sjolund - MNDNR Matt Steiger - WDNR St. Louis River AOC Leaders Pat Collins – MNDNR Wayne DuPuis- Fond du Lac Cherie Hagen – WDNR Chris Kavanaugh - MNDNR Darrell Schindler – MNDNR Doug Wetzstein - MPCA

Management Action leads Bradly Benson, USEPA Gini Breidenbach – MLT Dan Breneman – MPCA Linda Cadotte – City of Superior Joe Graham – WDNR Joel Hoffman – USEPA Tom Howes – FdL LaRae Lehto – MPCA Brad Leick - MPCA Diana Mally – USEPA Martha Minchak – MNDNR Diane Packett – WDNR Daryl Peterson – MLT Steve Schoff – MPCA Sarah Yost – MPCA


ii

St. Louis River AOC Coordination Assistance Lucie Amundsen, MPCA Kendra Axness – WDNR Kris Eilers – SLRA Susan Tesarik - WDNR Cheri Zeppelin – MNDNR

The 2013 RAP Update, its appendices, and the 2020 RAP can be found on the following web sites:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/st-louis-river-area-concern-resources)

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/GreatLakes/StLouis.html)

Disclaimer The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a non-regulatory agreement between the United States and Canada and criteria developed under its auspices are non-regulatory. The management actions identified in this document are designed to meet beneficial use impairment (BUI) delisting targets specifically established for the SLRAOC and are not subject to enforcement or regulatory actions. The management actions identified in RAPs are a prioritized list of management actions that are directly related to BUI removal as outlined in the RAP; however, the list of management actions is adaptive and changes are outlined in the annual RAP updates. For BUI removal purposes, management actions are considered complete when substantial completion of construction is reached. Long-term monitoring, maintenance, and continuing obligations may be needed at some sites, but will not restrict BUI removal.


iii

Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... v

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... vi

Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... ES-1 BUI Removal and Timelines ................................................................................................................. ES-7 Stakeholder Engagement ..................................................................................................................... ES-8 Getting There………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ES-8

Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap ......................................................................................................1 Overview of the Roadmap ........................................................................................................................ 1 Extent of the AOC Program ....................................................................................................................... 3 Roadmap Organization ............................................................................................................................. 4 Sediment Characterization........................................................................................................................ 5 BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories ......................................................................................................... 7 BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................... 13 BUI 3: Fish Tumors and Other Deformities ............................................................................................. 19 BUI 4: Degradation of Benthos ............................................................................................................... 21 BUI 5: Restrictions on Dredging .............................................................................................................. 24 BUI 6: Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients ............................................................................. 32 BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions............................................................................. 38 BUI 8: Degradation of Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ 44 BUI 9: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................. 47

Section 2: St. Louis River AOC Management and Decision-Making Framework ................................... 55 Partner Agencies and Organizations ....................................................................................................... 55 State Agency Coordination and Management ........................................................................................ 56 Community Involvement and Outreach/Education ................................................................................ 57 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................................................... 58

Section 3 St. Louis River (Gichigami-ziibi) Cultural Corridor ................................................................ 59

The Winter Trail ..................................................................................................................................... 60


iv

Table of Contents, continued Section 4: Remedial Action Plan History............................................................................................ 62

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 62 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Overview of the Implementation Framework Project ............................................................................ 70

Section 5: BUI Technical Teams......................................................................................................... 79

Section 6: References ....................................................................................................................... 82 List of Appendices Appendicies are from the 2013 RAP Update and are available on the webpages listed on page ii. They are not reproduced in this document.

Appendix A: Implementation Framework Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Appendix B: BUI and Scientific Advisory Group Team Membership List

Appendix C: BUI Team Charge

Appendix D: BUI Blueprints

Appendix E: Remediation to Restoration Template

Appendix F: St. Louis River Area of Concern Sediment Characterization: Final Report

Appendix G: Sediment Assessment Areas


v

List of Figures Figure ES-1: St. Louis River AOC Boundary .............................................................................................. ES-5 Figure ES-2: Remediation and Restoration Management Action Sites in the St. Louis River AOC .......... ES-6 Figure 1: The Program Scope of the St. Louis River Area of Concern ........................................................... 3 Figure 2: SLRAOC Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations BUI Restoration Projects ................................ 16 Figure 3: Remediation and Characterization Sites in the St Louis River AOC ............................................ 27 Figure 4: Beaches to be Addressed for BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions .................. 40 Figure 5: Remediation and Restoration Management Action Sites in the St. Louis River AOC ................. 49 Figure 6: Ojibwa Ceded Territory and Reservation Boundaries ................................................................. 61 Figure 7: St. Louis River AOC Boundary ...................................................................................................... 66 Figure 8: Organizational and Decision-Making Structure of AOC Stakeholders ......................................... 72 Figure 9: Major Components of the R2R Process ....................................................................................... 76 List of Tables Table ES-1: Beneficial Use Impairments Status Summary ....................................................................... ES-3 Table ES-2: Anticipated BUI Removal Timelines ...................................................................................... ES-7 Table 1: Anticipated BUI Removal Timelines ................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Sediment Assessment Area Color Designations.............................................................................. 6 Table 3: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 1 ...................................................... 111 Table 4: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 2 ........................................................ 18 Table 5: Management Actions Completed for Removal of BUI 3 ............................................................... 20 Table 6: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 4 ........................................................ 23 Table 7: Sediment Assessment Area Color Designations............................................................................ 25 Table 8: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 5 ........................................................ 29 Table 9: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 6 ........................................................ 37 Table 10: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 7 ...................................................... 42 Table 11: Management Actions Completed for Removal of BUI 8 ............................................................. 45 Table 12: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 9 ...................................................... 50


vi

List of Acronyms AIS Aquatic invasive species AOC Area of Concern BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BSAF Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor BUI Beneficial use impairment CAC Citizen Action Committee CPUE Catch per unit effort CWA Clean Water Act DSPA Duluth Seaway Port Authority DUAS Duluth Urban Area Streams FCA Fish consumption advisories FdL Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa FFY Federal Fiscal Year FTC Fish tissue concentrations GLDIVER Great Lakes Data Integration Visualization Exploration and Reporting system GLLA Great Lakes Legacy Act GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, amended in 1978, 1987 and 2012 HTAC Harbor Technical Advisory Committee HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IJC International Joint Commission LAMP Lakewide Action and Management Plan LSNERR Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve MLT Minnesota Land Trust MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer system NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PSD Proportional stock density RAP Remedial Action Plan R2R Remediation to restoration SAA Sediment Assessment Areas SAG Scientific Advisory Group SIP Stakeholder Involvement Plan SLR St. Louis River


vii

List of Acronyms, continued SLRA St. Louis River Alliance SLRE St. Louis River estuary TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total suspended solids UMD University of Minnesota US United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA GLNPO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office USEPA-GLTED U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USS U.S. Steel UWS University of Wisconsin Superior WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WLSSD Western Lake Superior Sanitary District WWTP Wastewater treatment plant


viii

Definitions Area of Concern (AOC) Defined by Annex 1 of the US-Canada GLWQA as amended in 2012:

Geographic area where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level.

The goal of the AOC program is to improve these areas so they are no more environmentally degraded than other comparable areas of the Great Lakes. When that improvement has been reached, the AOC can be removed from the list of AOCs, or “delisted.” Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) A "beneficial use" is any way that a water body provides benefits for humans, aquatic life, and wildlife (for example, providing fish that are safe to eat). If the beneficial use is unavailable due to environmental problems (for example, if it is unsafe to eat the fish because of contamination) then that use is impaired. The International Joint Commission (IJC) provided a list of 14 possible beneficial use impairments in the 1987 GLWQA amendment. Nine BUIs apply to the SLRAOC. Delisting Target Specific goals and objectives established for BUIs, with measurable indicators to track progress and determine when BUIs can be removed and AOC delisting can occur. Targets are locally derived. Remedial Action Plan (RAP) According to the US-Canada GLWQA 2012 amendment, a RAP is a document that provides “a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in Areas of Concern…” RAPs are required by the GLWQA, which specifies that the Parties shall cooperate with State and Provincial Governments to periodically update and implement them for each AOC. Stages in RAP development (i.e., Stages I, II, and III) have been consolidated into one inclusive RAP process. An annual RAP update for the SLRAOC will be led by MPCA and WDNR by amending the most recent RAP to incorporate BUI progress and changes that may occur. The RAP will be labeled with the year it has been updated and will be posted online.


ix

Definitions, continued Remediation For the SLRAOC, remediation means the actions taken to address beneficial use impairments associated with sediments containing toxic or bio-accumulative contaminants. Remediation includes actions taken to control, minimize, restore or eliminate potential or actual ecological and human health risks from exposure to contaminants. Underwater sediments are the primary driver because beneficial use impairments in the SLRAOC are associated with contaminated sediments. However, other media such as soil, groundwater, surface water can also be remediated, either directly or indirectly. Examples include, but are not limited to, monitored natural recovery, removal (dredging), capping, in-situ stabilization, treatment, and disposal.

St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA) The SLR citizen advisory committee was formed in 1989. It was incorporated as the citizen action committee (CAC) and as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization in 1996 and has been doing business as the St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA) since 2009. The Alliance serves as the citizens’ advisory committee for the SLRAOC. The SLRA Vision is: “We envision a clean and healthy St. Louis River with a thriving ecology, economy, and community.” The SLRA Mission is: “The St. Louis River Alliance is a membership organization committed to supporting the resiliency of the St. Louis River. As river stewards, we are the voice of the river, working together to protect, restore and enhance the St. Louis River.”

St. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan Executive Summary

ES-1

Executive Summary Background

This St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) 2020 Remedial Action Plan (RAP) presents a comprehensive plan outlining management actions necessary for removing each of the remaining beneficial use impairments (BUIs). A goal of delisting the SLRAOC by 2025 was established by the state RAP implementing agencies in 2013. As implementation progress has been made, the complexity of the management actions has become more apparent. The current goal is to complete the construction projects by September 30, 2024 (timeline established by GLRI Action Plan III), with remaining BUI removal and delisting to follow. AOCs do not have a regulatory deadline for delisting.

The SLRAOC made substantial progress toward setting clear delisting goals with the development of the 2013 RAP Update, otherwise known as the Roadmap to Delisting. This 2020 RAP documents the continued progress by describing BUI status and changes to management actions and timelines over the last federal fiscal year (FFY). A draft redlined version of the RAP, showing changes made for the FFY, was open for stakeholder and partner input for a two-week period. AOC staff reviewed and addressed the stakeholder and partner input before finalizing the RAP update and submitting it to the US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA GLNPO).

The purpose of this document is to serve as a RAP update. RAPs are required by Annex 1 of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The GLWQA indicates that RAPs must include the following elements:

1. Identification of beneficial use impairments and causes;

2. Criteria for the restoration of beneficial uses that take into account local conditions and established in consultation with the local community;

3. Remedial measures to be taken, including identification of entities responsible for implementing these measures;

4. A summary of the implementation of remedial measures taken and the status of the beneficial uses; and

5. A description of surveillance and monitoring processes to track the effectiveness of remedial measures and confirm restoration of beneficial uses.

The RAP is a bi-state document produced by the AOC Coordinator Team: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (FdL), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), with input from AOC partners and stakeholders to document the status and progress of BUI removal through


ES-2

the completion of management actions. These management actions include on-the-ground restoration and remediation projects, monitoring and assessment projects, and stakeholder engagement processes.

The SLRAOC, located on the western arm of Lake Superior and including the twin port cities of Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, was listed as one of 43 Great Lakes AOCs in 1987. Historical actions such as unregulated municipal and industrial waste disposal and unchecked land use practices, including dredging and filling of aquatic habitat and damaging logging and manufacturing practices, contributed to the complex set of issues facing the SLRAOC at the time it was listed. The Stage I RAP (MPCA and WDNR, 1992) determined that nine of 14 possible BUIs existed in the SLRAOC including:

BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories

BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations – To be proposed for removal in 2021

BUI 3: Fish Tumors and Other Deformities – Removed in 2019

BUI 4: Degradation of Benthos

BUI 5: Restrictions on Dredging

BUI 6: Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients –Removed in 2020

BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions

BUI 8: Degradation of Aesthetics – Removed in 2014

BUI 9: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat

All of the management actions identified in this RAP are underway or complete. As of September 30, 2020, 41 of 80 the management actions are either complete or need no further action (51.2%). The SLRAOC state RAP implementing agencies have a current goal of completing all construction project management actions by September 30, 2024, to be followed by completion of the remaining non-construction management actions and delisting. Table ES-1 describes the overall status of each BUI.

ES-3

Tabl

e ES

-1. B

enef

icial

Use

Impa

irmen

ts S

tatu

s Sum

mar

y Be

nefic

ial U

se Im

pairm

ent

Stat

us

Sum

mar

y of

Sta

tus a

nd N

ext S

teps

Fi

sh C

onsu

mpt

ion

Advi

sorie

s Im

paire

d Al

l fou

r man

agem

ent a

ctio

ns a

re u

nder

way

. The

mer

cury

stud

y m

anag

emen

t act

ion

1.02

b w

as st

arte

d in

201

7 an

d w

ill a

sses

s so

urce

s of m

ercu

ry in

AOC

and

refe

renc

e sit

e fis

h. F

undi

ng fo

r add

ition

al m

ercu

ry a

nd P

CB a

naly

sis w

as re

ques

ted

in 2

020

and,

if fu

nded

, dat

a an

alys

is w

ill b

e co

mpl

ete

in 2

022,

afte

r whi

ch a

n in

tegr

ated

fish

mer

cury

char

acte

rizat

ion

repo

rt w

ill b

e pr

epar

ed. I

nitia

l PCB

mod

elin

g is

com

plet

e. R

ecov

ery

mon

itorin

g of

fish

cons

umpt

ion

advi

ce is

pla

nned

thro

ugh

2025

, afte

r w

hich

the

pote

ntia

l for

BUI

1 re

mov

al w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted.

De

grad

ed F

ish a

nd W

ildlif

e Po

pula

tions

Im

paire

d

Avia

n ha

bita

t res

tora

tion

at In

ters

tate

Isla

nd (2

.06)

cont

inue

d in

202

0 an

d w

ill b

e co

mpl

eted

in sp

ring

2021

. The

cons

truc

tion

of th

e Pi

ping

Plo

ver h

abita

t res

tora

tion

proj

ect (

2.05

) is c

ompl

ete.

Whi

le o

bjec

tives

for W

alle

ye a

nd M

uske

llung

e ha

ve b

een

met

, rou

tine

fish

popu

latio

n m

onito

ring

and

repo

rtin

g on

thes

e sp

ecie

s con

tinue

. Bec

ause

the

Lake

Stu

rgeo

n re

mov

al

obje

ctiv

e ha

d no

t bee

n m

et, a

n as

sess

men

t was

com

plet

ed to

eva

luat

e po

tent

ial l

imita

tions

to p

opul

atio

n re

cove

ry; i

t fou

nd

ther

e w

ere

no S

LRAO

C-sp

ecifi

c fac

tors

affe

ctin

g th

at p

opul

atio

n; a

repo

rt is

due

at y

ear e

nd. B

UI re

mov

al is

pla

nned

for 2

021.

Fi

sh T

umor

s and

Def

orm

ities

Re

mov

ed

All

thre

e m

anag

emen

t act

ions

are

com

plet

ed a

nd th

is BU

I was

form

ally

rem

oved

in F

ebru

ary

2019

.

Degr

adat

ion

of B

enth

os

Impa

ired

Po

st co

nstr

uctio

n m

onito

ring

is th

e on

ly m

anag

emen

t act

ion

in th

is BU

I and

it w

ill o

ccur

at m

ultip

le si

tes.

Thi

s wor

k ha

s be

gun

at th

e re

fere

nce

sites

and

at e

ach

aqua

tic h

abita

t site

whe

re re

stor

atio

n ha

s bee

n co

mpl

eted

. The

RAP

has

link

ed th

e be

nthi

c im

prov

emen

t of r

esto

ratio

n sit

es to

this

BUI.

The

post

-con

stru

ctio

n da

ta w

ill b

e co

mpa

red

to th

e pr

e-co

nstr

uctio

n bi

olog

ical d

ata

alre

ady

colle

cted

and

use

d to

est

ablis

h be

nthi

c met

rics (

Tri M

etric

Inde

x and

Eph

emer

ids f

or M

N sit

es) t

o as

sess

the

outc

omes

of a

quat

ic re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts.

Data

will

be

deliv

ered

to th

e GL

DIVE

R sy

stem

and

eac

h st

ate

will

be

resp

onsib

le fo

r ana

lyzin

g th

is in

form

atio

n fo

r the

ir re

spec

tive

sites

. Pre

para

tion

of a

BUI

4 re

mov

al p

acka

ge w

ill ta

ke p

lace

af

ter t

he fi

nal p

re-to

-pos

t con

stru

ctio

n as

sess

men

t is c

ompl

eted

. Re

stric

tions

on

Dred

ging

Im

paire

d

Thirt

een

of 2

9 m

anag

emen

t act

ions

are

com

plet

e, a

nd th

e re

mai

nder

are

und

erw

ay.

How

ard’

s Bay

(5.0

2) co

nstr

uctio

n st

arte

d in

202

0. A

zcon

/DSP

A Sl

ip (5

.08)

was

com

plet

ed in

Nov

embe

r 202

0. W

iscon

sin co

mpl

eted

sam

plin

g to

ass

ess t

he n

eed

for r

emed

ial a

ctio

n at

5 si

tes a

nd a

repo

rt w

ith re

com

men

datio

n is

expe

cted

in e

arly

202

1. O

utst

andi

ng a

nd re

cent

dat

aset

s co

ntin

ue to

be

adde

d to

GLD

IVER

. B

UI re

mov

al is

slat

ed fo

r 202

5.

Exce

ssiv

e Lo

adin

g of

Nu

trie

nts a

nd S

edim

ents

Re

mov

ed

All f

ive

man

agem

ent a

ctio

ns a

re co

mpl

eted

and

the

BUI w

as fo

rmal

ly re

mov

ed in

Apr

il 20

20.

Beac

h Cl

osin

gs a

nd B

ody

Cont

act

Impa

ired

Tw

o m

anag

emen

t act

ions

hav

e be

en co

mpl

eted

and

the

rem

aini

ng fo

ur m

anag

emen

t act

ions

are

und

erw

ay. A

“no

swim

min

g” si

gn is

still

pre

sent

at U

S St

eel/S

pirit

Lake

site

and

“war

ning

” sig

ns a

re st

ill p

rese

nt a

t Cra

wfo

rd C

reek

and

Mun

ger

Land

ing.

Bec

ause

sign

rem

oval

is d

epen

dent

on

the

com

plet

ion

of a

djac

ent r

emed

iatio

n pr

ojec

ts, B

UI re

mov

al is

slat

ed fo

r 20

25.

Degr

adat

ion

of A

esth

etics

Re

mov

ed

All f

ive

man

agem

ent a

ctio

ns a

re co

mpl

eted

and

this

BUI w

as fo

rmal

ly re

mov

ed in

Aug

ust o

f 201

4.

Loss

of F

ish a

nd W

ildlif

e Ha

bita

t Im

paire

d

Nine

man

agem

ent a

ctio

ns a

re co

mpl

ete

and

the

rem

aini

ng 1

2 m

anag

emen

t act

ions

are

und

erw

ay. R

esto

ratio

n at

the

King

sbur

y Ba

y an

d Gr

assy

Poi

nt si

tes i

s nea

ring

com

plet

ion,

but

fini

shin

g w

ork

will

carr

y ov

er in

to 2

021.

19,

000

cubi

c yar

ds o

f bi

o-m

ediu

m w

as a

dded

to th

e 40

th A

ve W

est s

hoal

s in

2020

. Ph

ase

one

of th

e Lit

tle B

alsa

m C

reek

fish

pas

sage

culv

erts

pr

ojec

t was

com

plet

ed in

202

0. B

UI re

mov

al is

slat

ed fo

r 202

5.


ES-5

In addition to its long list of management actions for each of the BUIs, the SLRAOC is spatially large and geographically complex, spanning the Minnesota and Wisconsin state line and including tribal interests. However, most of the management actions included in this RAP focus on: the St. Louis River below Fond du Lac Dam, Crawford Creek, and the Nemadji River watershed, because they represent those portions of the AOC most impacted by historical actions (Figure ES-1 and ES-2). The AOC boundary is described below.

The AOC boundary includes the lower 39 miles of the St. Louis River, from upstream of Cloquet, Minnesota to its mouth at the Duluth/Superior Harbor, and that portion of the watershed; the Nemadji River watershed; and the western portion of Lake Superior defined on its eastern edge by a line drawn from the eastern HUC 12 Dutchman Creek watershed boundary in Wisconsin where it intersects the Lake Superior shoreline north to where the eastern HUC 12 Talmadge Creek watershed boundary in Minnesota intersects with the Lake Superior shoreline north to the intersection of the Cloquet River HUC 8. (MPCA and WDNR, 2014)

Figure ES-1: St. Louis River AOC Boundary


ES-6

Figure ES-2: Remediation and Restoration Management Action Sites in the St. Louis River AOC (Revised October 2020)

Pre-2013 Actions to Support Delisting

Significant work was done in the AOC between 1978 and publication of the 2013 RAP Update on infrastructure upgrades, habitat restoration projects, and protection efforts, as follows:

Infrastructure Upgrades: o Creation and expansion of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) o Upgrades to the City of Superior wastewater treatment plant o Municipal efforts to control inflow and infiltration to prevent wet weather overflows

Habitat Restoration and Remediation Projects: o Sturgeon stocking and spawning habitat restoration in the St. Louis River, followed by

young-of-the year observations o Restoration of Tallas Island at the mouth of Knowlton Creek o Piping Plover habitat enhancement, maintenance, monitoring and outreach at

Wisconsin Point and Schafer Beach


ES-7

o Clough Island conifer restoration, invasive species control, and aquatic/terrestrial condition assessment

o Baseline sampling, surveys, or studies of benthic macroinvertebrates, avian species, aquatic plants, and contaminant bioavailability

Protection Efforts: o Protection of Clough Island o Protection of 6,500 acres of geologically sensitive habitat in the St. Louis/Red River

Streambank Protection Area o Protection of more than 4,500 acres in two Wisconsin State Natural Areas within the

Pokegama River watershed

This early work supports BUI removals, but does not fully address legacy sediment contamination and lost wetland habitat, which remain significant stressors to ecosystem health of the St. Louis River estuary (SLRE). These deficiencies are addressed in the 2013 RAP Update and subsequent updates.

BUI Removal and Timelines

Completed and anticipated BUI removal dates are listed in Table ES-2. As can be seen below, BUI 3 was removed in 2019, while BUI 6 is now designated for 2020 and BUI 2 is designated for 2021. All other BUI removals are slated for 2025. The state RAP implementing agencies estimate that the AOC will be eligible for delisting in 2025.

Table ES-2: Anticipated BUI Removal Timelines

BUI Removal Timeline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025

Degradation of Aesthetics (BUI 8) √ Fish Tumors and Deformities (BUI 3)

√ Excessive Loading of Sediment & Nutrients (BUI 6)

√ Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations (BUI 2)

● Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions (BUI 7)

* ● Restrictions on Dredging (BUI 5)

* ● Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat (BUI 9)

* ● Degradation of Benthos (BUI 4)

* >● Fish Consumption Advisories (BUI 1)

* >● * indicates goal of construction management actions complete by 2024, after which BUIs can be removed >● means that removal will be sometime after 2025, but target dates are not established yet.


ES-8

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement has been and will continue to be a priority in the SLRAOC. It is not described for each BUI unless a specific management action or need has been identified. An extensive stakeholder process was undertaken during BUI Blueprint and 2013 RAP Update development. Stakeholder outreach for the rollout of the 2013 RAP Update was coordinated with the assistance of the SLRA. In addition, the 2013 RAP Update was presented to city and county governments in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (FdL), and the area business community by AOC coordinators and SLRA staff. It is the intention of the SLRAOC staff to continue to reach out to these organizations periodically and when input is needed on significant items. An SLRAOC update is also part of the annual St. Louis River Summit where SLRAOC staff have the opportunity to reach citizens, resource managers, and university and research staff. An annual SLRAOC update is also part of the annual Celebration of Progress event. The SLRAOC-Wide Communication Plan is reviewed each spring and fall, and updated as needed. SLRAOC information is also made available through GovDelivery notifications from MN and WI agencies and press releases by the state agencies and USEPA. Each agency and SLRA maintain websites with SLRAOC information.

A stakeholder input opportunity is a part of the annual RAP update process. The list of stakeholders compiled during development of the 2013 RAP Update is kept up to date by SLRAOC staff as the primary list of partners, agencies, and citizens. Stakeholders are notified of the annual RAP update and given a chance to review and comment on the RAP. Additional public input opportunities also often exist at different stages of remediation and restoration projects: feasibility study/preferred alternatives, permitting, environmental review, design, and for BUI removal.

In May and June of 2020, SLRA administered an Engagement Survey on behalf of the Coordinators to get public suggestions on how to improve communications about the SLRAOC and input on program concerns. The survey was emailed to over 1,400 recipients and 251 responses were received. SLRA prepared a report containing the survey results and their recommendations for how to use the information. The Coordinators and the Public Information Officers from each state agency met to discuss the report and options for addressing the findings.

Getting There

Initial cost estimates made during the 2013 RAP Update for implementation of the RAP’s management actions were in the range of $300-$400M. In addition to adequate financial support, the 2013 RAP Update acknowledged that agency support from USEPA for SLRAOC staff at MPCA, WDNR, MNDNR, and FdL is crucial for successful RAP implementation and management, BUI removal, and ultimate SLRAOC delisting. Completion of the management actions identified in the RAP requires sustained program staff over the long term without interruption.

St. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap Overview

1

Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap This section presents the St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) Delisting Roadmap (Roadmap), which was initially prepared in the 2013 Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Update. For details on the history of actions leading to the development of the 2013 RAP Update and subsequent annual RAPs, see Section 4. Section 1 is organized in the following subsections:

Overview of the AOC Roadmap: provides readers with a concise summary of management actions and timelines and describes the organization, contents, and format of the Roadmap.

Roadmap Organization: explains how the overall AOC and individual BUI Roadmaps are organized.

Sediment Characterization: describes the sediment characterization work completed to support the Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) removal strategies.

Individual BUI Roadmaps: describe the rational for listing, removal target and strategy, management actions and status, removal timeline, and issues affecting progress for each of the nine BUIs.

Overview of the Roadmap

The BUI information contained in this section was originally developed based on information in the BUI Blueprints developed by the extensive list of stakeholders as described in Section 3. Using the Blueprints as a basis, AOC coordinators and leaders refined the BUI removal target interpretations, articulated BUI removal strategies, and developed the management actions needed to achieve removal of each BUI.

The removal strategies and management actions selected for the 2013 RAP update were intended to represent the remaining work that is necessary to delist the AOC. Significant work contributing to BUI removal was done in the SLRAOC between 1978 and the publication of the 2013 RAP Update on infrastructure upgrades, habitat restoration projects, and protection efforts, as follows:

Infrastructure Upgrades: o Creation and expansion of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) o Upgrades to the City of Superior wastewater treatment plant o Municipal efforts to control inflow and infiltration to prevent wet weather overflows

Habitat Restoration and Remediation Projects o Sturgeon stocking and spawning habitat restoration in the St. Louis River, followed by

young-of-the year observations o Restoration of Tallas Island at the mouth of Knowlton Creek o Piping Plover habitat enhancement, maintenance, monitoring and outreach at

Wisconsin Point and Schafer Beach o Clough Island conifer restoration, invasive species control, and aquatic/terrestrial

condition assessment o Baseline sampling, surveys, or studies of benthic macroinvertebrates, avian species,

aquatic plants, and contaminant bioavailability


2

Protection Efforts: o Protection of Clough Island o Protection of 6,500 acres of geologically sensitive habitat in the St. Louis/Red River

Streambank Protection Area o Protection of more than 4,500 acres in two Wisconsin State Natural Areas within the

Pokegama River watershed

This early work will support BUI removals. The SLRAOC Coordinators recognize that the RAP is a tool for management and must be adaptive as information becomes available and management actions are completed. Completion status and progress of management actions are updated annually in the RAP.

The primary focus of the remaining “on the ground” management actions is remediation of contaminated sediments and habitat restoration. Toxics contamination in the AOC contributes directly or indirectly to eight of the nine BUIs (BUI 6: Excess Loading of Sediment and Nutrients is the exception). Remediation of contaminated sediments may occur as separate projects or in association with some AOC restoration efforts, depending on the ecological or human health thresholds. Approximately 3,400 acres of aquatic habitat is estimated to have been lost over time in the St. Louis River Estuary (SLRE, Hollenhorst et al., 2013). Restoration sites were selected based on a goal to restore 50% of this lost habitat. Remediation and restoration site locations are shown in Figure ES-2 and Figure 5.

A list of management actions necessary to achieve removal is provided for each BUI. The tables include dates for completion of each identified management action. As of September 30, 2020, 41 of 80 the management actions are either complete or need no further action (51.2%). Based on these lists, anticipated BUI removal timelines are shown in Table 1. Once all the BUIs are removed, the implementing agencies will initiate the delisting process.

Table 1: Anticipated BUI Removal Timelines

BUI Removal Timeline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025

Degradation of Aesthetics (BUI 8) √ Fish Tumors and Deformities (BUI 3)

√ Excessive Loading of Sediment & Nutrients (BUI 6)

√ Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations (BUI 2)

● Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions (BUI 7)

* ●

Restrictions on Dredging (BUI 5) * ● Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat (BUI 9)

* ●

Degradation of Benthos (BUI 4) * >●

Fish Consumption Advisories (BUI 1)

* >● * indicates goal of construction management actions complete by 2024, after which BUIs can be removed >● means that removal will be sometime after 2025, but target dates are not established yet.


3

Extent of the AOC Program

There is an important distinction between the federal AOC program administered by states and other program authorities that state and federal environmental, natural resource, and health agencies may have. The AOC program addresses “legacy” issues or environmental problems that were known to cause ecosystem impairments at the time of the AOC designation and that largely occurred before modern environmental regulations were in place. Legacy issues significantly impact geographically-defined sites rather than regional-scale stressors. For the SLRAOC, examples of legacy issues are unregulated disposal of industrial and municipal waste, dredging and filling of the estuary, wood waste deposited in the river and logging of the entire region that exacerbated erosion and sedimentation problems. The Clean Water Act (CWA) and other environmental regulations have been implemented to protect the environment from these types of large-scale problems. The scope of the AOC program does not include “modern” issues that are now addressed by many existing natural resources program authorities managed by a variety of state and federal agencies. Some examples of modern issues are: contaminants of emerging concern, water-related climate change impacts, non-compliance of point source permits, and impairments identified and regulated under the CWA.

The same environmental and natural resource agencies that implemented the SLRAOC Program will address ongoing issues after the Program has ended, but under different program authorities. This will include long-term monitoring and maintenance of remediation and habitat projects, species management, and regulatory enforcement (Figure 1). Additional description of the SLRAOC background and history can be found in Section 4.

Figure 1: The program scope of the St. Louis River Area of Concern


4

Best professional judgment, based on information available in 2013, indicates that contractual costs for implementation of the BUI removal strategies and associated management actions included in the RAP could range from $300-$400M. It is important to note that these are estimated funds needed to implement management actions identified in 2013 and do not include pre-2013 costs already expended on the significant efforts already made towards AOC delisting.

Roadmap Organization

The Roadmap is organized into ten sections, including a section on sediment characterization followed by nine individual BUI roadmaps.

The sediment characterization section describes the work done by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to evaluate sediment contaminant levels across the SLRAOC based on data contained in the SLRAOC Data System. This section also describes additional sediment characterization needs identified by MPCA and WDNR that are necessary to support the removal strategies and management actions described in this RAP update.

The individual BUI roadmaps include the following sections:

Rationale for Listing – The rationale for listing, as stated in the Stage I RAP. BUI Removal Target – The complete BUI removal targets (MPCA and WDNR, 2011). They

include definitions of terms, objectives, and interpretations of the BUI. Defining measurable and achievable removal targets for each BUI is emphasized. BUI 2 contains removal objectives that are specific to certain fish and wildlife populations.

BUI Removal Strategy – The strategy developed to meet the BUI removal target is based on the BUI removal objectives and interpretations of the removal target. Major steps necessary to reach the BUI removal target are described.

BUI Summary of Key Management Actions, Current Status, and Actions Still Needed –A current summary of management action status and any BUI decisions, along with a table of management actions still needing completion to achieve BUI removal. Management actions included for each BUI stem from the BUI Blueprints, as refined during RAP updates, and reflect their measurable contribution to BUI removal. Details for each management action include:

- Project number: a unique number given to a project - Project name - Project description: a brief description of the project intent - In-house/contractual: indication of who will conduct the work - Date to be completed

Anticipated Timeline to Remove BUI –The year in which the BUI is anticipated to be removed, based on successful completion of the BUI removal strategies and management actions.

Issues Affecting Progress - Issues that may delay BUI removal (e.g., management actions, targets, funding) and what is being done to address the issue(s).


5

The date management actions will be completed and the anticipate timeline to remove the BUIs are reviewed and adjusted each year to accommodate changes in project schedules.

Sediment Characterization

Legacy toxics contamination in the SLRAOC contributes directly or indirectly to eight of the nine BUIs. This section describes the sediment characterization work conducted in the SLRAOC to provide information for the development of management actions that support BUI removal strategies and to define where additional sediment contaminant sampling is needed.

To support development of the 2013 RAP Update, MPCA (with GLRI funds) sponsored an AOC-wide sediment characterization project in 2012 to support analysis of the sediment contaminant data contained in the AOC Data System (described in Section 4). The data were analyzed to provide a planning-level view of the status of sediment contamination across the SLRAOC. The Sediment Technical Team (described in Section 4), consisting of staff from MPCA and WDNR, directed the analyses and presentation of the data for their respective states. The AOC-wide characterization work was documented in the St. Louis River Area of Concern Sediment Characterization: Final Report (LimnoTech, 2013; Appendix F).

To establish a common framework for assessing and displaying sediment contaminant data, the SLRAOC was divided into sediment assessment areas (SAAs). Each SAA was given an individual number and unique name. Maps showing the SAAs within each are provided in Appendix G of the 2013 RAP Update.

The primary goal of the sediment characterization project was to support MPCA and WDNR staff in designating SAAs according to remedial action needs. The SAA remedial needs were categorized as follows:

1. SAAs in need of remediation; 2. SAAs needing further sediment contaminant sampling to determine remedial designation;

and 3. SAAs that may need some form of remediation before habitat restoration occurs.

Note: remediation and/or restoration sites can be comprised of multiple SAAs, each with an SAA-specific remedial designation.

A color scheme was adopted for each SAA to designate what further action was needed, as given in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3.


6

Table 2: Sediment Assessment Area Color Designations

SAA Remedial Designation

Definition

Purple Remedial action complete, monitoring of effectiveness underway or complete.

Red Remedial action needed.

Red-gray Additional characterization and assessment needed to determine if remedial action is necessary.

Yellow Remediation generally not warranted, but management actions must consider the presence of contaminants, especially bio-accumulative contaminants.

Green No known contamination. No remedial actions planned.

Where SAAs are in need of further sediment contaminant sampling to confirm their remedial designation (i.e., red-gray sites), additional samples are to be collected and the data evaluated by the respective states to determine the remedial designation. If a remedial designation of red is confirmed, the sites will be added to the list of remediation sites to be addressed in the RAP. It should be noted that further sediment characterization may be needed at remediation or aquatic habitat restoration sites based on site objectives and for feasibility and design purposes. Information on supplemental sediment characteriztion efforts that have been or may still need to be completed is provided under the roadmap for BUI 5 - Restrictions on Dredging. All information from these studies and reports can be found in the Great Lakes Data Integration Visualization Exploration and Reporting (GLDIVER) data management system.

Sediment sampling for Minnesota’s red-gray sites was completed in 2014. Sediment sampling to characterize Wisconsin’s red-gray sites was completed in 2020. Remedial decisions at Wisconsin’s red-gray sites will be made in 2021.

St. Louis River AOC 2018 Remedial Action Plan Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories

7

BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories

BUI 1 Rationale for Listing Historically, some fish samples taken from the St. Louis River and Lake Superior exceeded levels of contaminants established by Minnesota and Wisconsin for the unrestricted consumption of locally-caught fish. Each state has issued their own fish consumption advisories for various population groups based on fish species and size classes. In Wisconsin, those advisories were collectively issued for the presence of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In Minnesota, the advisories were either for mercury or mercury plus PCBs. At the time of AOC listing, fish tissue residues of mercury and PCBs exceeded the respective 0.5 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg standards established in the 1978 GLWQA for the protection of aquatic life and fish-consuming birds.

BUI 1 Removal Target The Target for this BUI will be reached when:

There are no Area of Concern-specific fish consumption advisories issued for the St. Louis River by the State of Minnesota or the State of Wisconsin. Tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern in representative samples of resident fish are not significantly elevated from regional background samples. (MPCA and WDNR, 2011)

The two contaminants of concern are mercury and PCBs, as those are the reasons for current consumption advisories in the SLRAOC.

Removal of the Fish Consumption BUI will be justified when:

There are no fish consumption advisories issued for the SLRAOC concern by the State of Minnesota or the State of Wisconsin that are more stringent than advice given for other waterbodies in the region; or Tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern in representative samples of resident fish are not significantly different than reference samples.

The BUI may be removed on either basis, and a different basis may apply for each contaminant of concern. For purposes of this BUI removal target, the definition of “reference site” is as follows:

Mercury – Waterbody(ies) in northwest Wisconsin and/or northeast Minnesota with conditions (e.g., water chemistry, hydrogeomorphology) similar to that of the St. Louis River estuary

PCBs - St. Louis River upstream of Cloquet and/or Lake Superior

The target established for removal of this BUI is not intended to include consumption advice that may be established for subsistence fishing by tribal members within the St. Louis River.


8

BUI 1 Removal Strategy The strategy for BUI removal focuses on fish tissue concentrations (FTCs) of mercury and PCBs. The 2016 revised strategy removes specific actions related to fish consumption advisories (FCAs). The decision is based on the complications with comparing FCAs in different waterbodies and states, and the better likelihood of a meaningful comparison of the SLRAOC and reference site(s) using FTCs. However, if the Minnesota Department of Health and WDNR both revise the FCAs stating the FCA in the AOC is no more stringent than FCAs at a reference site similar to the SLR, BUI removal is supported.

The strategy for BUI removal includes the management actions listed in Table 3. Two of the management actions are comparisons of FTCs in the SLRAOC to a reference site(s) for PCBs (1.01) and mercury (1.02b). An additional management action for mercury includes studies underway that are assessing the contribution of legacy mercury contamination to present-day methyl-mercury residues in biota (1.02a). The last action, if needed, is continued monitoring to evaluate recovery of contaminants in fish tissue (1.03). The strategy for removal of this BUI is as follows:

Management Action 1.01 for PCBs

This management action is based on three principles:

1. The reference location is the St. Louis River upstream of Cloquet because this is upstream of known sources of legacy contamination. The fish species collected from each site (to the extent possible) include Walleye, Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, Black Crappie, Smallmouth Bass, and Channel Catfish. A multi-species approach is being used. First, the fish represent multiple diet habits (benthic, pelagic) and trophic levels (prey fish, predators), which is necessary to diagnose changes throughout the food web. Second, the fish have different growth rates and longevity and thus will respond to remediation at different rates (for example, a relatively short-lived species such as Yellow Perch responds faster than Walleye, which lives much longer). Third, these species are common monitoring targets for contaminants and thus comparable data can be found for other waterbodies, which is necessary to develop an appropriate comparison with the reference location.

2. FTC analysis may include PCB congeners and/or total Aroclors when needed for data comparison and to help identify PCB sources between a reference location and the AOC and the contribution of legacy PCB sources to present-day residue in biota.

3. Remediate sites in the SLRAOC associated with PCB contaminated sediments, if necessary. Then use a BUI decision tree to determine if BUI removal is justified. Decision tree(s) for this BUI are in development by the Technical Team.

Management Action 1.02a and 1.02b for Mercury

These management actions are based on three principles:

1. Use existing studies underway to assess if high sediment mercury concentrations are associated with legacy sources and with higher than average mercury in biota.

2. Use existing data to evaluate and select a reference location(s) and fish species for comparison of mercury FTCs. The reference locations for mercury should follow the reference site definition


9

above. A multi-species approach will be followed. The fish species collected from each site (to the extent possible) will include Walleye, Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, Black Crappie, Smallmouth Bass, and Channel Catfish.

3. Remediate sites in the SLRAOC associated with legacy mercury contaminated sediments, if necessary. Then use a BUI decision tree to help make the determination.

Management Action 1.03 for Recovery Monitoring

This action will be informed by the results of 1.01 and 1.02, if it is determined that additional monitoring of fish tissue is needed outside of the routine consumption advisory monitoring.

If fish tissue concentrations of mercury and PCBs are not in recovery as compared to reference sites, then identify whether non-routine monitoring is needed to inform future consumption advice. Non-routine monitoring may include, but is not limited to, the need to monitor more frequently, sample fish from different habitats, gather an increased sample size, select certain fish species or test for different parameters for BUI removal purposes. If non-routine monitoring is needed, develop a monitoring program appropriate to determine whether existing routine FTCs are in recovery for legacy-related AOC purposes. If FTCs are not recovering as anticipated, continue to monitor and study bioaccumulation in the estuary to better understand factors that are driving mercury and/or PCB accumulation in the system and to determine if it is AOC-related.

BUI 1 Summary of Key Management Actions, Current Status, and Actions Still

Needed The status of management actions needed to remove this BUI is as follows:

Management Action 1.01 - Study PCB fish tissue concentrations

US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (USEPA-GLTED) laboratory staff have been assigned to conduct a comparison between fish collected in the AOC and the reference location on the St. Louis River upstream of Cloquet. Fish collected in the SLRAOC and the reference area in 2013 and 2015 have been analyzed for PCBs. Drs. Joel Hoffman and Lawrence Burkhard (USEPA) have developed biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) models for various fish species using whole fish and passive membrane devices to examine potential sediment sources of PCBs in fish tissue and developed a preliminary map of bioaccumulation spots for the AOC below the Fond du Lac dam. A proposal to assess data gaps discovered through the modeling effort was submitted to EPA in 2020. If funded, the field work will be completed in 2021 and the model re-evaluated thereafter. This model has been used to identify areas that need additional investigations to inform remedial decisions at the Ponds behind Erie Pier and Munger Landing Sites. It will also be used to support BUI 1 removal, according to the PCB decision tree developed in 2020. Management Action 1.02a - Study sources of mercury in fish tissue

The following studies have been or are being conducted to better understand the contribution of legacy mercury contamination to present-day methyl-mercury residues in biota.


10

Dr. Dave Krabbenhoft and Dr. Sarah Janssen, US Geological Survey (USGS) Upper Midwest Water Science Center, and Charles Madenjian, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, are using GLRI funds to fingerprint primary sources of mercury (sediments, runoff, and air deposition) through stable isotopic signatures and compare with fish samples to provide direct and quantitative measure of the relative source contributions. This study is being done in the St. Louis River and Fox River AOCs. Dr. Joel Hoffman (USEPA) and Bruce Monson (MPCA) are collaborators on this project. Mercury isotope analysis in fish fillets collected from the Thomson and Scanlon Reservoirs, the Ponds behind Erie Pier, and the Munger Landing sites were added in 2019, along with sediment core analysis and methyl mercury isotope work. Preliminary findings have identified two data gaps: (1) it is unknown whether methyl mercury in fish is from legacy industrial sources and how much that contributes to FCAs and (2) because an isotopic signature shift can happen as a result of methylation, a correction factor may be necessary to more accurately estimate the legacy industrial signature. A request to fill these data gaps has been submitted to EPA and, if funded, sampling and analytical work will be completed in 2021. Findings from this work will be assessed against a mercury decision tree developed in 2020 to determine next steps and to support BUI 1 removal.

WDNR completed a project in the SLRAOC below the Fond du Lac Dam that entailed the development of surface area weighted means for mercury and methyl-mercury in benthic invertebrates (primary target: Hexagenia spp.; secondary target: isopods). The project sampled invertebrates at 51 randomly distributed sites, as well as 27 known mercury sediment or biota hot spots from previous studies. Isopods were sampled and tested for mercury at some sites where Hexagenia was not present. This information documented the current Hexagenia population in the SLRE and contributed toward an understanding of mercury bioaccumulation in the SLRE food chain. A final report was posted in the WDNR SWIMS database: https://dnr.wi.gov/water/wsSWIMSDocument.ashx?documentSeqNo=256795144

FdL, MPCA, and Minnesota Power collected water quality data and young-of-year perch mercury concentration data in all the Minnesota Power reservoirs in the main stems of the St. Louis River and Cloquet River, including two reference (non-reservoir) lakes within the watershed (Minnesota Power, 2018). This study provided key information regarding the relative mercury bioaccumulation rate in fish and methylmercury contribution of the managed reservoirs in the watershed.

Dr. Nathan Johnson, University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) Civil Engineering Department, received funding from Minnesota Sea Grant to better understand methylmercury production and bioavailability in the SLRE. The researchers collected water, sediment and biota from a variety of locations in the estuary and analyzed them for total mercury and methylmercury. This work provided information to help make decisions concerning beneficial use of dredging materials, habitat restoration and consumption advisories.


11

Management Action 1.02b –Characterize fish for mercury

A mercury comparison study started in 2017 to investigate water quality, tissue & food web and sediment components in the following St. Louis River habitats and at the reference site. Data analysis and report writing is underway with study completion anticipated in 2022.

St. Louis River Estuary - 40 sampling locations below the Fond du Lac dam were included in the study.

Bad River Reference Site - The Bad River, Honest John Lake, and Kakagon River and sloughs on the Bad River Reservation near Ashland, WI exhibited similar estuary-like conditions to the SLRE, but without legacy mercury contributions. This site was selected as a reference location because of its geographic proximity and similar water quality and hydrogeomorphic conditions to the SLRE.

Reservoirs – Target fish species, prey species, and sediment were selected for collection and analysis in the reservoirs above the Fond du Lac dam and within the SLRAOC.

Management Action 1.03–Recovery Monitoring of Consumption Advice

Fish fillets were collected from target species and areas that will be analyzed for mercury and PCBs so that fillet results can be compared to the BSAF results from whole fish and directly compared to FCAs. Analyses will be completed in 2021.

Table 3: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 1

Mgmt Action

Project Name Project Description In-house/ Contractual

Date to be Completed

1.01 Study PCB Fish Tissue concentrations

Compare fish tissue PCB concentrations for selected fish species at reference locations to fish collected in the AOC.

USEPA-GLTED and MPCA

2022

1.02a Study sources of mercury in fish tissue

Use studies underway to demonstrate a contribution of legacy mercury to present-day methyl-mercury residues in biota.

GLRI funded projects

(USGS, WDNR, MN/WI Sea Grant, FdL, MPCA, MN

Power)

2022

1.02b Characterize fish for mercury

Compare fish tissue mercury concentrations for selected fish species at a reference location to fish collected in the AOC. Include reservoirs in comparison.

USEPA-GLTED & USGS to

perform over multiple years

2022

1.03 Recovery Monitoring of Consumption Advice

If fish tissue concentrations of Hg & PCBs are not in recovery as compared to reference sites, identify whether non-routine monitoring is needed to inform consumption advice.

In-house MPCA and WDNR

(supplemental monitoring to be

determined)

Ongoing through 2024

This BUI relies on remediation of sites contaminated with mercury and PCBs.


12

Anticipated Timeline to Remove BUI 1

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 >●

BUI 1 Issues Affecting Progress Initial mercury study results suggest that legacy mercury in the SLRAOC is greater than the reference site; however, additional work is needed to determine if the methyl-mercury in fish has a significant legacy source.

The SLRAOC staff will continue to work with programs, researchers, and state and tribal health departments to implement the removal strategy and stakeholder outreach and education. Monitoring FTCs is currently happening through routine state and tribal FCA monitoring. Management action 1.03 requires FTC monitoring beyond routine FCA specifications (i.e., intervals, species, and sample sizes) as determined through management actions 1.01, 1.02a, and 1.02b. In the meantime, management actions continue to be pursued through other BUIs that will contribute to the remediation of mercury and PCBs in the AOC.

Stakeholder engagement and education will be critical for removal of this BUI. Clearly explaining how the SLRAOC efforts fit into the development of fish consumption advisories and the scientific basis for BUI removal will be important. Additionally, it will be important to explain that FCAs may remain due to atmospheric and watershed sources managed by other regulatory programs and addressing these modern sources will take actions beyond the AOC program. Coordinating BUI removal with federal, tribal and state entities is a priority.

St. Louis River AOC 2018 Remedial Action Plan Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations

13

BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations

BUI 2 Rationale for Listing During the period of severe organic pollution before 1979, fish populations were degraded and fish kills were common. One reason fish populations recovered since that era is because of improvements in wastewater treatment. Fish populations were also adversely affected by the proliferation of the Ruffe invasive fish species in the early 1990s. At the time of SLRAOC listing, the potential impacts from toxic substances on fish population health were largely unknown. At that time, loss of physical habitat also threatened fish and wildlife populations, including the loss of wetland habitat and the infestation of the invasive plant purple loosestrife. Little population data were available for wildlife, with the exception of colonial nesting birds in the SLRAOC. Populations of the Common Tern and the Piping Plover (threatened and endangered species, respectively) had declined, likely caused by a combination of local and regional factors.

BUI 2 Removal Target The BUI Removal Target will be reached when:

In consultation with their federal, tribal, local, and nonprofit partners, state resource management agencies concur that diverse native fish and wildlife populations are not limited by physical habitat, food sources, water quality, or contaminated sediments. (MPCA and WDNR, 2011)

Removal of the Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations BUI will be justified when it is shown that key native species populations of fish (i.e., Walleye, Muskellunge, Sturgeon) and wildlife (i.e., Piping Plover, Common Tern, Great Blue Heron, Bald Eagle, wetland bird species, and semi-aquatic mammals) are present and not limited by physical habitat, food sources, water quality, or contaminated sediments as evidenced by the removal objectives listed below.

BUI 2 Removal Objectives Due to the complexity of BUI 2 and its removal target, several removal objectives were defined, as outlined below.

Fish

The BUI removal objectives for fish are based on goals established in the MNDNR St. Louis River Estuary Lake Management Plan (MNDNR, 2012), as updated by the BUI Tech team for the 2017 RAP, for three indicator fish species: Walleye, Muskellunge, and Lake Sturgeon. The objectives, which must be demonstrated with fish survey data, are as follows:

Walleye

Gillnet catch per unit effort (CPUE) is maintained at or above 5.0 per lift with a proportional stock density (PSD) between 30 and 60 in at least 50% of years surveyed since 2000.


14

Muskellunge

Trap net CPUE is maintained at or above 1.0 per lift in at least 50% of years surveyed since 1997.

Lake Sturgeon

Document an increasing trend of 2 to 5-year-old fish captured in summer index nets, with at least 2 index values greater than 2.0 per gillnet lift.

Wildlife

The wildlife species represented in the BUI removal objectives below were selected by AOC resource managers based on their importance for developing consensus among resource managers that wildlife species are no longer limited by physical habitat, food sources, water quality, or contaminated sediments. The removal objectives established for the target wildlife species (i.e., Piping Plover, Common Tern, Great Blue Heron, Bald Eagle, wetland bird species, and semi-aquatic mammals) and invasive species are as follows:

Piping Plover

Piping Plover populations have been limited by historical habitat losses and may be restricted by factors operating outside of the estuary; however, to support the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great Lakes Piping Plover population, efforts are being made to create suitable nesting habitat within the St. Louis River AOC. In order to remove this BUI, implementation of the Piping Plover habitat project (management action 2.05) in the RAP is necessary.

Common Tern

Common Tern populations have been limited by historical habitat loss and may be restricted by factors within the estuary such as ice cover, flood events, gull predation and competition for nesting and young rearing habitat by gulls, including other regional factors outside of the estuary. Wisconsin’s Common Tern Recovery Plan establishes a goal of a 10-year average of 200 nesting pairs with sufficient production of 0.8-1.1 young per breeding pair to maintain population stability in the St. Louis River Estuary (Matteson 1988). To support this goal, efforts are being made to maintain and enhance suitable nesting habitat within the St. Louis River AOC. To remove this BUI, implementation of the Interstate Island restoration project (management action 2.06) in the RAP is necessary. In addition, the state agencies will continue to support habitat management and population monitoring at Interstate Island.

Great Blue Heron

Removal of this BUI is not dependent on the establishment of a Great Blue Heron rookery, but the recorded presence of the species in the estuary during nesting season since 1997 will provide additional evidence for BUI removal.


15

Bald Eagle

Recovery of the Bald Eagle and the recorded presence of the species in the estuary during nesting season since 1997 is an indicator for BUI removal.

Wetland Bird Species

Removal of this BUI is not dependent on populations of wetland-associated wildlife species. An AOC-wide bird follow-up survey to compare to work done in 1979 is necessary evidence for BUI removal.

Invasive Species

An analysis of historical data that shows the Ruffe is not inhibiting the native fish population is required to remove this BUI.

Semi-Aquatic Mammals

Removal of this BUI is not dependent on specific semi-aquatic mammal population numbers. However, to support development of concurrence among state resource management agencies, a semi-aquatic mammal survey will be conducted in the estuary to verify that populations are not limited by physical habitat, food sources, water quality, or contaminated sediments.

BUI 2 Removal Strategy The strategy for BUI removal includes the six management actions listed in Table 4. Two management actions are nearly complete; four have been completed. Anticipated BUI removal is in 2021. The strategy for removal of the Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations BUI is as follows:

Complete a thorough inventory and assessment of populations of the selected target species of birds (as listed above in the removal objectives) across the estuary. Available data on additional bird species from historical and recent monitoring may also be used to assess the overall status of the bird populations (management action 2.01); completed in 2016.

Continue routine MNDNR and WDNR fish population monitoring and reporting to confirm continued health of Walleye and Muskellunge and continued recovery of Lake Sturgeon. Lake Sturgeon populations that meet the objectives above must be documented for two index periods (management action 2.02); in progress.

Complete the analyses of Lake Sturgeon tissues to assess whether legacy contaminants are affecting early life stage and adult fish (management action 2.02); in progress.

Complete an analysis of historical fish population data to confirm that Ruffe are not inhibiting the native fish population (management action 2.03); completed in 2017. Note that the prevention and control of other invasive flora and fauna are addressed under the Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat BUI.

Complete an estuary-wide semi-aquatic mammal survey (management action 2.04); completed in 2016.


16

Increase available Piping Plover stopover and nesting habitat within areas identified in Figure 2 (management action 2.05). Habitat construction was completed in 2020 with AOC monitoring and maintenance continuing through 2024.

Restore and protect critical nesting habitat for Common Tern and stopover habitat for Piping Plover at Interstate Island (management action 2.06); in progress.

Figure 2: SLRAOC Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations BUI Restoration Projects (Updated October 2020)


17

BUI 2 Summary of Key Management Actions, Current Status, and Actions Still

Needed Construction began on the Interstate Island avian habitat restoration project (management action 2.06) in April 2020, pausing to allow for Common Tern nesting and population monitoring starting in May. Construction resumed in August through November 2020 and will be completed in spring 2021. Annual collection of Common Tern nesting information and management of Interstate Island continues through MNDNR and WDNR wildlife management programs and the University of Minnesota – Duluth’s Natural Resources Research Institute. Following construction, MNDNR and WDNR nongame wildlife management programs will jointly implement a long-term maintenance plan.

Construction of the Piping Plover nesting habitat restoration project was completed in 2020. The project is located at the WI Point Bird Sanctuary (see Figure 2). WDNR is implementing a monitoring and maintenance plan, including a habitat establishment phase and continued Piping Plover monitoring during the nesting season.

While objectives for Walleye and Muskellunge have been met, routine fish population monitoring and reporting continued through the MNDNR and WDNR fisheries programs.

Enhancement of Lake Sturgeon and Walleye spawning habitat was part of management action 9.10, Chambers Grove Park restoration. Despite past efforts to recover SLRAOC Lake Sturgeon populations via fingerling stocking, 2018 monitoring data affirmed that recruitment was not being observed at anticipated levels and was not trending towards BUI objectives. Fish Technical Team members identified a need to assess potential factors limiting Lake Sturgeon recovery and determine whether limiting factors were influenced by legacy contamination. In 2018, the Technical Team developed and implemented a study to assess adverse effects related to legacy contaminants on early life stage and adult Lake Sturgeon using predictive ecotoxicology and non-lethal samples of blood, eggs, and mucus. For early life stages, predictive models compared total toxicity of legacy contaminants (blood, eggs) to early life stage mortality. For adults, metabolomes were analyzed to assess reproductive impairments. Sampling for this study concluded in 2019 once minimum sample size requirements were met. Analysis of 2019 tissue samples, 2018-2019 mucus samples, and additional modeling were completed in 2020. Results were shared with the Fish Technical Team and the final report will be delivered by December 2020. Results of these studies showed that there were no indicators of egg mortality or reproductive impairment due to concentrations of the legacy contaminants tested.


18

Table 4: Management Actions Needed to Achieve Removal of BUI 2

Mgmt Action

Project Name Project Description In-house/ Contractual

Date to be Completed

2.01 Bird Inventory and Assessment

Conduct an estuary-wide bird inventory for target species to be combined with existing inventory data available. Complete an AOC-wide assessment of bird population status using the combined dataset.

Contractual 2016 completed

2.02 Fish Population Monitoring and Assessment

Continue regular MNDNR and WDNR fish population monitoring and evaluate to track status of target fish species against the BUI removal objectives.

Conduct study of Lake Sturgeon tissue to

assess adverse effects related to legacy

contaminants on early life stage and adult

fish.

In-house: Sampling

conducted by MNDNR, WDNR, and other partners

USEPA-GLTED, MNDNR

Yearly through 2020

December 2020

2.03 Ruffe Assessment

Document Ruffe populations in relation to native fish populations within the estuary.

USEPA 2017 completed

2.04 Semi-Aquatic Mammal Survey

Conduct an estuary-wide semi-aquatic mammal survey.

Contractual 2016 completed

2.05 Piping Plover Habitat / Beach Nourishment

Increase available nesting habitat within area designated critical habitat.

WDNR, EPA, USACE, USFWS,

SLRA, WI Sea Grant, City of Superior, FdL

2020

Completed

2.06 Interstate Island Avian Habitat Restoration

Restore and protect critical nesting habitat for Common Tern and stopover habitat for Piping Plover.

MNDNR, WDNR, MLT

2021

Anticipated Timeline to Remove BUI 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

●

BUI 2 Issues Affecting Progress Final construction activities on Interstate Island will be completed in spring 2021. Therefore, BUI removal is plann

St. Louis River Area of ConcernSt. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan viii Definitions Area...

Documents

Transcript of St. Louis River Area of ConcernSt. Louis River AOC 2020 Remedial Action Plan viii Definitions Area...